Redstate

she has a "good feel" for Hillary voters.

__________
When I was your age....heck, I was NEVER your age

Thanks Gamecock. As I said in the blog, you were my inspiration. :-)

Just as a news tidbit in reference to the ugliness I report in my post above, the Clinton supporter who organized last Saturday's webcast and mini "town hall" meeting between over 6,000 Clinton supporters and Senator John McCain, Paula Abeles, has been trashed all over the Internet by the Obama supporters, and had a multitude of threats made against her and her children. She nevertheless decided to go on the only media outlet willing to tell her story - Fox News - and reveal this latest saga in the intimidation of Clinton supporters.

Here is a link if you would like to hear Paula speak out. She even mentions the voter fraud used by the Obama campaign. She is quite the brave woman.

http://clintondems.com/2008/06/paula-abeles-on-the-obama-thugs-attacks/

I'm so sorry 07rescue, that you and your friends had to endure so much ugliness. I actually do remember seeing your friend, Paula Abeles, being trashed as a "racist" on a website linked on RCP yesterday. In fact, the other day, I was making a comment on Slate's website, in response to some awful Christopher Hitchen's column (talk about a misogynist, but I digress), and two Obama supporters made sexist comments to me--one called me "hysterical". I, of course, put the smack down, and told him what a moron he was, because I don't take crap from kiddies. :-)

Do you know Harriet Christiansen? She's my hero ;)

Congratulations. Now you have a hint of what it's been like to be a Republican for the last 30 years. The tactics you note were not made up just for Hillary. They've be honed by campaign after campaign - and in more than a small measure BY the Clintons.

There is some measure of sardonic humor watching folks who've spent the last 20+ years denying this sort of behavior existed get burned by it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Please be careful about overstating the extent of corruption and violent, overtly criminal behavior in political campaigns. There are many areas in this country where both Democrats and Republicans have maintained ethical behavior, or, at least eschewed the worst offenses. I prefer to focus on, and give credit to, the large number of Americans in both parties who refuse to join in the ruthless free for all that the Democratic Party is now permitting to overwhelm it's ranks.

Let's be real, there are good and honest people in both parties who have principles of fair play they uphold, including Hillary Clinton. I am not saying anything about Bill Clinton, not having been personally involved with his campaigns, only that having been involved in every campaign Hillary Clinton has led herself, from the inside out I have never once seen anything that involves criminal behavior in either get out the vote or fundraising efforts. In fact, every HRC campaign I have been with has been squeaky clean, and made many efforts to rein in the abuses that fringe Democrats, unaffiliated with her campaigns, have attempted, like subterranean smear efforts against Rick Lazio in 2000. I was there, I saw it in action. That's the kind of campaign I want to see proliferate. John McCain runs that kind of tight ship as well.

That is one of the real solid values which, as old fashioned as it is, attracts many Hillary Clinton supporters to John McCain's campaign. Disagree with him on policy as we may, his tough minded ethical approach has enormous appeal.

Hillary Clinton might well have been a more fair and clean campaigner in a contest with John McCain than George Bush was. Too bad we will never know how that would have gone. Personally, I would have put my money on it.

I'm for cleaning up brutal tactics in both parties, they breed the kind of hyperpartisanship that results from each party getting away with increasing amounts of foul play. It has a tendency to escalate, as each side decides that the only way to win is to out foul play the other. Law enforcement can only do so much, there must be an effort on both sides from the inside, to refrain from the worst offenses, and to expose them, even at the cost of an election. That is what I, as a liberal progressive Democrat, am hoping to provoke within my own party. I'm not ready to sit back and allow this country to turn into a banana republic, not on my watch. Above all, the threats of physical violence and actual violence levied against political opponents crosses a line I remain unalterably opposed to crossing.

it's too late to save the shoes, but if you stop now I might be able to save the pants.

The incredulity of your assertion that Hillary is squeeky clean and pure as the driven snow is too much to swallow.

I don't think you even comprehend what I am talking about. Sure, I bet the accusations made against your Republican candidates sound very harsh to your ears, just as those made against our candidates do to ours. But I will guarantee you that Hillary Clinton never systematically had death threats made against her opponents supporters, their children, their elderly parents, burned down the opponent's campaign offices, or had drive by shootings through the windows, etc. I'm trying to convey that there is a whole new level of corruption that is possible, and it is there that all people of reasonably good, Democrat and Republican, will have to take a stand.

I don't care how intensively you investigate and scrutinize Hillary Clinton's campaigns, from the first Senate campaign in 2000 to the present, you won't find illegal activities or unethical campaign practices. I believe facts, not unsubstantiated trashing, which is what you are doing. I was personally involved, and yes, she is squeaky clean, she made certain of it.

Your side forced taxpayers to spend 60 million dollars investigating the Clintons and the investigations came up with nothing, ziltch, nada. So as much as you might like to believe in your fairy tale about them, it simply isn't true, and never was.

There are plenty of honest, ethical politicians around, cynicism is just destructive when you try to smear all of them, and it obscures the fact that there really are some bad apples who need to be removed whenever possible. It's like crying "wolf". When you try smearing all of them, just to win elections, then when the really bad ones like Obama try taking over too many people dismiss it as simply "corruption as usual". It's not, it's on a whole other scale...

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

She never was, she never will be. If you miss that fact, you miss an tremendous amount.

perjured testimony re the former. Bill lied under oath re Jones, paid huge contempt fine and settlement, lost law license. Hillary got Bill to pardon PR terrorists to help her in NY senate campaign.

what is your point?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

re-written here so long as non-brownosing post-conservative epiphany former Bill Clinton voting gamecocks that were in the back rooms as a front man for the kooks in the dem party are still here at RS. Yes, Hillary is light years better than Barack and she became a better candidate when she discovered the voters Bill would have needed more of had Perot not ran twice, but Hill and Bill pardoned terrorists, hobnobbed with Ayers-like 60s heroes, and fronted for the pathologies of the rev wrights.

I know. I helped them do it for far too long.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

The Clinton's are not moderate, being light years better than Obama, they just figured out how to lie to another group of people. Just like Slick Willie was a Southern "centrist" who voted to keep partial birth abortion legal and gutted the military to the Jimmah Carter days. And shall we forget who let Osama Bin Laden get away from us when Sudan offered us Bin Laden because he was to bust getting h*** from overweight hussies to come up with something to charge Bin Laden with. The Clintons are the same despicable lying pieces of filth that they've always been, and thy would be absolutely worse than Obama-the Clintons have a history of ruthlessly implementing their far left agenda, and Obama does not. Rant over, and the Clintons will always be the Spawns of Satan to BR.

“To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering.”-Barry Goldwater
Kill the terrorists.
End the NewTone.
Punch the Hippies.

Here is the big hairy but! On ECONOMIC and fiscal matters Bill's administration was somewhat to the right of Bush. Yes, I know he was pushed in that direction by a republican congress, but nevertheless Clinton started the Democrat Leadership conference for the express purpose of pulling the party to the center on fiscal issues.

A few other things like support for the death penalty makes (at least Bill) a much different type of lying snake than Obama.

It is like the difference between a grass snake and a rattler.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Oooooh, spankings!

Monica never mentioned those.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

We're courting them now, remember. The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend

BR, thank you. God bless. Beat Cubs please. The Braves want to play the Sox in October.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

If you go back and read the title, the purpose of this blog is to reach out to Clinton voters--not alienate them, which is exactly what your post will do. You can write your own blog, if you so desire, about how Republicans can alienate Clinton voters and get Obama elected president. However, if I may be blunt, your tirade is counter-productive to what I, and other Redstate posters on this blog, are trying to accomplish. Please go rant on your own blog.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

I have the opportunity to spend time on Democratic blogs where Republicans are slammed and lied about, or Republican blogs where Democrats are slammed and lied about, and the mutual drivel and deceptions serve no purpose but to mislead. There is a tiresome self satisfied certainty to each set of belief systems. I generally ignore both.

I have met these politicians on both sides and they are not the demons anyone makes them out to be, and creating false narratives about them doesn't help fix anything in our country. It raises money for each side from those willing to be demagogued, who give away their power of discernment. I don't let it sway me in either direction. False outrage generates donations, that's it's purpose.

I don't agree with McCain's positions on many issues, but I do like and respect him as a person, so he has gained my support. I simply value free and fair elections too much to support Obama, who's ideas of fair play horrify me, and will damage democracy in this country. Many Clinton voters agree with me, and for our own reasons will support him, and do the best we can to help him beat Obama in this election.

We Clinton supporters actually are implementing our own organizational systems, so we don't really need to plug into Republican networks, but there may be some areas where our efforts might be more effective if we did, so we can see whether it works out. If it is too fractious we will be better off working separately. Too much noise will drown out the message.

There are some really smarmy, condescending Obama blogs about how to recruit "Obamacans". It's perfectly repulsive how they coach people to "listen" to the ideas of others and then gently "confront" them with the "truth" until they capitulate their Republicanism. If you want to help yourself to some of that just go check out MyDD on any given day. There will be ample work for Republicans just to keep all the angry, disaffected members of your party from voting for Obama just to punish the Bush administration. I encountered far too many pissed off Republicans in my travels to primary states. A lot of them think Obama would be just fine in the White House. You have your work cut out for you. I personally spent a considerable amount of time disabusing Obama-leaning Republicans of the idea that Obama would be any improvement over Bush, and their retribution Obama votes would bring election practices into play that would defeat them for years to come.

It's perfectly possible to work together to elect John McCain in this election while simply respecting that there are very real limits to our areas of agreement, and we each have substantial reasons for believing as we do.

I really would like to be able to converse via e-mail to refine thinking on this; you've made some rather cogent points.

I am extremely frustrated because I wrote a lengthy response to your comment here, and my hyperactive mouse moved me to a different RedState page as I was nearing publication, wiping out everything, and I just don't have the time and energy to reconstruct it now. I've already been on RedState too long this morning.

E-mail is much safer in that regards.

You can contact me via my user page contact link.

And Rightly So!

What scares me is a conservative party moving further and further left to appease you and the rest of the McCain Hillary Huckabee types who don't give a da*n about principles as long as the party wins elections. At this point I don't care about working my tail off to ensure another President who will rule as a liberal Republican. Liberals in both parties aren't worth my time. But by all means, continue to cry about how mean the Republicans are to you all. Frankly, you're threats to go and vote for Obama don't really frighten me all that much, and if we lose because we can't fire up the Right, the thing we in the party call the Base, than the Party deserves to lose. I'd rather lose as a conservative than win as a liberal, something you all are more than happy to do.

“To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering.”-Barry Goldwater
Kill the terrorists.
End the NewTone.
Punch the Hippies.

reached the crux of the matter.

What ought we to fear?

I suspect that the reason that you fear:

"a conservative party moving further and further left to appease you and the rest of the McCain Hillary Huckabee types who don't give a da*n about principles as long as the party wins elections."

is because of the ultimate harm the extinction of a viable conservative party could have on the long term prospects for the USA.

Of course, I agree, and I certainly will not participate in such extinction. Just the opposite.

But the fears up for discussion are not either/or.

BR, you know you should (and do) fear an Obama as president. If we don't have a president that will defend the country, it will not be defended. Moreover, should Obama have a filibuster proof senate, we could find ourselves in 2013 with a government closer to that of France than that of Reagan's morning in America.

Even without 60 votes in the senate, we could be Switzerland!

agree?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Without the g-d fence, the pandering to The Race, the secret meeting with Mexican Congress assuring us that we will get CIR, McCain's pew parked butt in Al Gore's church whose to say that our country will be defended. Will we win the war in the Middle East? Sure-but we have already ceded the domestic war with the nomination of McCain. All we can do is hope that the conservatives choose to stand and fight instead of capitulating to McCain's liberal goals every chance they get. Do I agree that McCain is better GC? Yes. Do I believe McCain will lead us to morning in America? No-I believe that McCain will be Nixon without the corruption-in short, the most liberal Republican President of our times. Blech. He gets my vote to turn Michigan red, but none of my money and time.

“To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering.”-Barry Goldwater
Kill the terrorists.
End the NewTone.
Punch the Hippies.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Br, What in the world are you talking about? I've never threatened to vote for Obama, and everyone on this site knows that. Please do not put words in my mouth. I, personally, don't care what you think. I'm just afraid that your self-indulgent tirades are going to alienate, or put-off, Hillary's voters who are considering voting for McCain. The last time I checked, the purpose of this website is to help elect John McCain as president. If you want to indirectly help Obama win the presidency (or at the very least, you said that you "don't care" if Obama wins) then kindly go do it on your own time. And, as I've said before, go rant on your own blog.

The purpose of this website is to further the Republican and conservative community, one of which John McCain questionably is. Not to mention the fact that who are you to tell me to go rant on my own blog? I certainly have built up a long enough profile on this site for 3 years to comment on whoever's blog I choose to. As I said, my self indulgent tirades as you choose to call them are not so I can make you and the rest of the liberals feel welcome, but to actually address the concerns of actual conservatives. And if you had been here for more than a year you would know that I care far more for true conservatism than Hillary, McCain or any of the rest of the folks posing as centrists and "republicans" have acted on. My point is to call as BS the idea that suddenly we are on the same side. And the threat of oh my god, you said something mean about Hillary now they are all going to vote for Obama doesn't scare me. I don't hold my tongue to be nice and PC so you guys feel warm and fuzzy inside. That's something that Democrats do.

“To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering.”-Barry Goldwater
Kill the terrorists.
End the NewTone.
Punch the Hippies.

Because you've been here for three years, you get to behave obnoxiously and run off potential voters for John McCain--who might also turn out to be future Republicans and Redstate members? In case you aren't aware, Erick recently wrote a blog (it was at the top of the rec list) asking us to reach out to all new Redstate members, not just the ones that pass BR's conservative litmus test.

Second of all, if you are really Mr. Conservative, like you claim to be, then I can't possibly see how you could "not care" if Obama becomes president. That makes absolutely no sense.

Oh, and lastly, I might not have been a RS member as long as you, but I've been one long enough to know that you are thread-jacking with off-topic rants and are, therefore, being very rude to the people who are posting on and reading this blog.

go easy on BR...could be a bit cranky since THE CUBS KICKED THE WHITe SOX BUTT, 3-0 THIS LAST WEEKEND!!! :P

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

I know that RedState is for advancing conservative and Republican causes, not for making every liberal who might vote for the liberal Republican candidate. And yes, I read Erick's post, thanks for asking-it doesn't mean we all have to hold hands on every single issue.

Second to address your second point, I am going to vote against Obama. If McCain wins, like I said he's going to not be much better. That's the way the cards fell, we got two liberals from both parties to run against each other. Fine. Both are going to screw us domestically, just Obama will also screw us in foreign policy.

Third, you are the one that started with me on off topic ranting. I pointed out facts that Hillary Clinton went from being the devil to being the mourned moderate Annie Oakley. I pointed out that she was a liar and non of her rhetoric matched her actions. Sorry if that hurts to hear that your favorite politicians a liar. It's something Republicans got very familiar with throughout the nineties. Since you're post was about the Clintons, I was arguing about the Clintons. But hey I understand, facts are off topic rants. You may vote for McCain but its good to see you still argue like a liberal. Facts are only good when they agree with you.

“To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering.”-Barry Goldwater
Kill the terrorists.
End the NewTone.
Punch the Hippies.

My blog was not "about the Clintons". If you read it, you would see that it actually said very little about the Clintons, themselves. My blog was about reaching out to Hillary Clinton's VOTERS (18 million people) by using specific issues that Republicans also agree with--something that you obviously have absolutely no interest in doing. Therefore, I don't know why you're still posting comments here, but whatever....

This comment is not worth the time or bandwidth to deal with it. Slander of candidates with meaningless babble doesn't serve any productive purpose.

Well, regardles. We can fight this fight in four years. In the meantime, welcome! The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend

But I will guarantee you that Hillary Clinton never systematically had death threats made against her opponents supporters, their children, their elderly parents, burned down the opponent's campaign offices, or had drive by shootings through the windows, etc. I'm trying to convey that there is a whole new level of corruption that is possible, and it is there that all people of reasonably good, Democrat and Republican, will have to take a stand.

Send me your evidence by way of my contact form. Send whatever links you have, whatever evidence you have. Let me examine it and if it's real I will write it all up on our site.

In all fairness, I don't think that we've ever seen a smear campaign like the one that Obama has run against Clinton--at least not on that level anyway. Yes there were damning ads--The Daisy ad, The Willie Horton ad, The Swift Boat ads, etc. And yes, the Democrats always had the liberal op-ed pages and the Republicans had talk radio. However, Obama had an entire news network (MSNBC) shilling for him and smearing Hillary nonstop, the whole liberal blogosphere shilling for him and smearing Hillary, every op-ed page shilling for him and smearing Hillary, and even had Air America and Moveon.org attacking Hillary. Oh, and it didn't hurt that he had a multitude of surrogates from the DNC smearing Hillary as well, but I digress.

During the 1990's CNN was pretty much the only cable news network, until Fox came on the scene in Oct. of 1996. And yes, Fox was biased toward Republicans in the past and CNN was biased toward Democrats, but neither ever took it to the level that MSNBC did with it's Obama love fest (CNN was way more biased than it has ever been in the past--it was trashing Hillary and shilling for Obama, but not quite as bad as MSNBC was). The major lefty political blogs were in their infancy in 2004 or were not even around, and Air America only started in around 2004. In fact, Rush Limbaugh was, pretty much, the only talk radio show around throughout the nineties. Bottom line, no candidate, liberal or conservative, could have EVER have run the kind of smear campaign that Obama ran against Hillary Clinton--even if they wanted to. The mechanisms just weren't in place yet. However, the good news for Republicans is that these media outlets and surrogates that Obama was using to smear Hillary have way more influence in a Democratic primary than they do in a general election.

I was a Democrat in 1980 and a republican in 2004, and the smear campaigns run against Reagan and Bush 43, by the media, were the worst I have ever seen.

Yes, the always partisan media since at least Walter Cronkite in the 60s (and really going back to the late 50s) is more overtly partisan in the 2000s, but that only makes them less effective. They were most effective when they had the monopoly and could more skillfully pretend objectivity.

Reagan was portrayed as a fool, a warmonger, a religious nut, and senile. From late 2003 thru the 2004 election, President Bush was the liar, also a fool, religious nut, and a recent cocaine user. The above templates were assumed known facts in all msm media stories, whether they be newspaper, radio news at the top of the hour, broadcast news, and all but FNC on cable.

And their bias against them was 24/7 all the time. Unlike Hillary who had favorable coverage until they fell in love with Obama, and even then, it doesn't compare to what was said about Reagan and Bush.

Kerry smeared himself by his life. Dukakis smeared his record by opposing pledge of allegiance and favoring furloughs for convicted murderers.

I was ashamed of the media in 1980 even though I wanted Carter to win re-election, and seeing how the media treated republicans as i got to see live events on c-span and then see rush and msm cover the same events, started me turning to the gop in the 90s and then the 2000 epiphany.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

When Hillary stood up before the microphone and said that it was a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that was out to smear Bill.

Not a single MSM "journalist" looked at her and asked, "WTF?"

Not a single "journalist' asked the first lady what little round puckered orifice she pulled that claim out of. there was no skepticism. There was no questioning of her statement. No fact-check.

NO! Instead, those "journalists" immediately ran up to the nearest Republican they could find and asked, "Are you a member of the VRWC?"

That is a "are you still beating your wife" question. ANY answer to such a STUPID question as that, is an acceptance of the premise. The MSM accepted the premise without ANY proof. It was a smear, plain and simple, and the MSM took it and ran with it.

While I agree GC that network news was very biased against Reagan (making him out to be a religious nut/ bumbling cowboy), there was no real cable news in 1980. Everybody watched network news, and network news didn't have all of the pundits and smear merchants (like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Jack Cafferty, etc.). I remember Lou Dobbs saying that he's never seen anything like the media bias against Hillary in all of his years of journalism. Sure, Reagan had the op-ed pages and the network news against him, and Bush in 2004 had cable news (except Fox) and the op-eds against him (but he had talk radio in his corner). However, Hillary had all of cable news (except FOX), all of the liberal blogs and liberal talk radio(which were not a force in 2004), and all of the op-ed pages and liberal magazines against her. Obama was literally able to run a CONCERTED smear effort like I've never seen before. However, as I previously stated, I think that the kind of concerted smear campaign that Obama ran against Hillary can only be effective in a Democratic primary--GE voters just don't care that much what the NY Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, The Daily Kos, Rhandi Rhodes Rhodes, Moveon.org, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, and Donna Brazile have to say.

On a side note, I think the writer's strike also helped out Obama in a way. All of the comedy shows/late night shows, especially SNL, had been beating up on Hillary for years. However, because the writer's strike happened when Obama's campaign first started taking off (Oct 2007), Obama had never received the same kind of scrutiny/ mockery, and SNL wasn't there to challenge the media bias against Hillary. Furthermore, SNL didn't come back on the air until around a week before the March 4th OH/TX primary--and even though they were able to successfully mock the media bias against Hillary and for Obama, by then it was too late. By the way, I'm not saying that Hillary won OH and TX because SNL came back on the air--I'm just saying that it, at the very least, didn't hurt, and in a small way probably helped.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Most Americans have no clue who Olberman is, and if you're not already part of the 300,000 or so of his viewers, would have no clue what he has said.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

unpopular. Rush/Cable exposed them. So when they turn overtly partisan it helps us, net.

What we fail to do too often is aggresively make the conservative case and all the left out morally.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

That was me responding to you. Blueblood is my husband. He must have been reading blogs last night while I was studying, or after I went to bed. I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in when I got on RS today.

rednecks haven't a chance....

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

1. Politics ain't beanbag. I have no problem with the vas majority of "negative" ads.

2. "Willie Horton" was initially run by Al Gore in thr D primary. It was run in the general by Rs as a radio ad. The Ds ran rebuttals on tv and screamed racism. In fact, the ad was true. Dukakis approved of the program that put Horton on the street and refused to repudiate it. When questioned directly, he waffled.

3. The Swifties told the truth. Not one of their charges against Kerry has been rebutted and Kerry has never publically released his military records. Then there's that treason thing in Paris...

4. With regard to corruption in general, check Washington State Gov, FL 2000 suits to block military ballots, virtually every major city where ACORN and their ilk have been involved in voter registrations, Chicago, Detroit, did I mention Chicago? etc.

5. With regard to the current level of whining about the "dirty" campaign BO ran, Hillary's folk were right out there with stuff that, if it were discussed by Republicans, would have likely led to urban rioting.

In the world of national politics, the Clintons are about the most dishonest and unethical group ever to breech the National scene. That they've gotten their heads handed to them, and with any luck self destructed in the process, is simply schadenfreud of the first order.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I don't have a problem with negative ads either. That was not my point at all. When I was listing Willie Horton, Swift Boat, and Daisy ads, I was just thinking of the "most famous" ones, or the first ones that came to my mind. If there are others, then please let me know. By the way, my husband just pointed out to me that Al Gore brought up the Willie Horton issue in the primary, but that the ad itself was run by George HW Bush in the GE. Anyway, it doesn't matter, negative ads are fair game, according to me. My point was that a couple of negative ads don't equal a 24/7 smear campaign by cable news, blogs, op-ed pages, and pundits. Someone can respond to a negative ad (Kerry was a fool not to respond the Swift Boat ads and deserved to lose). Someone cannot respond to a 24/7 media and Internet smear campaign.

Another thing, I don't think that saying that your opponent's Iraq war record is a "fairy tale" or that LBJ passed the civil rights legislation, or that white working class voters vote for you should cause urban riots--whether or not Republicans or Democrats say them--they are harmless statements. I don't think that it's good to falsely accuse anyone of racism.

Oh, and finally, if you dislike the Clintons, then that is fine. But again, the purpose of this blog is to reach out to their supporters, not alienate them.

Yes, Florida really got the bum's rush at that Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting. I managed to get into to watch it unfold, even though the Obama supporters were given extra options for signing up to get in to that meeting and outnumbered us 4 to 1. I watched the Rules and Bylaws Committee defy all rules of fair reflection and simply give 4 of Clinton's MI delegates to Obama, The committee was dominated by Obama supporters who nonchalantly gave them to their preferred candidate.

It made it onto the news when we Clinton supporters, outnumbered as we were, started chanting "Denver! Denver! Denver!" and "McCain in 08!" We had to sit and watch them turn over the nomination to Obama by committee fiat.

That is how PUMA (Party Unity My A**) was born.

This has not been discussed much, but what the superdelagates did was a total slap in the face to the MT and SD voters. I remember watching the news that night with my husband, and I couldn't believe all of the superdelegates that the Obama campaign was pushing out, in order to drag him over the finish line, before SD and MT had even finished voting--it was such a rude thing to do to those people. I thought that surely the Democrats would have given those two states their moment in the sun , so to speak, like all the other 55 states had gotten (snark). I thought that the superdelegates would at least pretend to be looking at all of the evidence (popular vote, number of swing states won, delegate lead, who had the momentum, who did best in the electoral college), and would wait two or three days after SD and MT voted before they all came out for Obama. Now, I realize that the reason why they did what they did, was because the Democratic party had decided to give the nomination to Obama a long time ago, and they didn't want their nominee to be embarrassed by another 30 or 40 point loss (like in KY, WV, and PR)--so they drug out all of the superdelegates in order to depress Hillary's turnout. An ARG poll, taken the day before, had shown Hillary up 26 points in SD (and the ARG polls had been right about WV and KY), so I think that the superdelegates got scared. It somewhat worked, because turnout was only 42%, and it was over 100% in most states. However, even with turnout being at only 42%, Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, still lost SD by 10 points. Funny, huh?

Thanks for the excerpt Pilgrim. I appreciate it.

To anyone interested, I also added an excellent column from The Washington Post dealing with Democratic primary misogyny--I forgot to include that. :-)

Her email address is:

spabeles@comcast.net

Thanks mbauer--glad that I could help out.

porn for me is watching you morons fool yourselves into believing mccain has a chance.

OBAMA 08!

Arrogance.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

I do wish that they'd think to do oppo research, first: it just looks stupid to try to homophobe all over the Contributor who's the resident pro-SSM advocate.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

the resident pro-SSM advocate.

Was that supposed to read pro-S&M advocate? :-)

typO I hate it when I blow a joke

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I thought it, but I wasn't gonna say it.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

It is the surest sign of pain in the Obama camp. Cheerful happy people, confident in their victory have no need to lash out.

Show me bitter angry people though and I will show you a campaign in trouble.

Those who control energy, control society.

Isn't there a Guitar-Hero tournament somewhere in your dorm that you should be attending instead of bothering us? Now, be gone, and let the adults discuss politics.

You begin with the savage mockery of some two-bit Lefty parrot; then you start thinking things like "well, maybe we should try to at least mitigate that particular troublesome social trend" - and the next thing you know, you're in a bar somewhere half-drunkenly drawing the Laffer Curve on a cocktail napkin and explaining why it's absolutely necessary to eliminate the capital gains tax.

It's insidious, let me tell you. And believe me, I can tell you. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

The sad thing is, I've explained the Laffer curve at a bar before... twice

but his curve was ok too.

Man, if there's one friggin' phrase out there that totally gets me to start yelling, it's this one.

(yes, I know he's gone but this is a rant that I need to get out of my system periodically.)

You know how and *WHY* Capitalism works? It's because different people value different things differently.

Let's say you've got a good basketweaver and a good spearmaker living down the road from each other. They trade 3 baskets for 3 spears. Both guys walk away from the deal feeling like they ripped off the other... because the basketweaver can make baskets but not spears, the spears are worth more to him (after all, he can always make another basket). Same for the spear guy. They *BOTH* walk away *RICHER* than they were before they traded!

So let's run with that for a second. Different people value different things differently... and some of them value "their own economic interests" less than they value Defense, say. Or Social Conservativism. Or Immigration issues. Or they want to bring Prohibition back. Or whatever!

And walking up to a person and saying "you shouldn't value *THIS*, you should value *THAT*" demonstrates failure to grasp the most fundamental of truths:

DIFFERENT PEOPLE VALUE DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Let's break that phrase down!

"THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE VOTING THEMSELVES MONIES FROM THE PUBLIC COFFERS!!!"

Argh, these people tick me off.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

of failed liberal econ policies.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

HTML Help for Red Staters

admit he wanted to tax the rich more even if it brings in less revenue. Nice of him to be honest.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Hollowman.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Though why an alien would bother to intervene in our mundane affairs here is a mystery to me.

And Rightly So!

First you guys make sexist comments about Hillary, and now you are making ageist comments about John McCain. You guys should try not to be so predictable. It's really boring. Oh, and by the way, Obama's a smoker so if anyone will be needing an Oxygen tank in the future, it will be him.

The man is a god!

Many of us, myself included, developed a grudging respect for Hillary as the campaign proceeded, and were amazed by the determination of the left and the MSM to throw the nomination to Obama despite his underperformance in the primaries, especially the later ones.

I mentioned on a previous comment upthread how Hillary supports more oil drilling here in the US. Only the far left Ds are opposed to drilling for oil here. This is an issue where I believe we can 'get 'er done.'


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

I'm glad to help. Oh, and welcome to Redstate. :-)